The Writ Petitions were disposed of after the Division Bench observed that the communication from the Tahasildar was a request for clarification, not a notice for possession, and no date for possession was fixed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 2 924-WP 1025.2021 & 1028.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1025 OF 2021
Saiyad Kalim Saiyad Latif Saiyad and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Maharashtra and others --Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2021
Yuniskhan Abdullha Khan Pathan -- Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and others --Respondents
Mr. Sachin Awachar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A. M. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 23 FEBRUARY 2021
P. C. :
The Petitioner borrower has filed this Petition on an apprehension that the Respondent No.2 – Tahasildar will proceed to take possession of the Petitioners’ property pursuant to the notice issued by Respondent No.4 – Financial Institute under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
KOLHE
2 / 2 924-WP 1025.2021 & 1028.2021
KOLHE
Saiyad Kalim Saiyad Latif Saiyad
Yuniskhan Abdullha Khan Pathan
State of Maharashtra
Nitin Jamdar
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
